Remember me
▼ Content

economic output emissions intensity vs global emissions / global GDP



Page 1 of 3123>
economic output emissions intensity vs global emissions / global GDP11-11-2022 23:41
hildes
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Hi,

I was reading the IEA Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 (https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2)

and it says "the average emissions intensity of global economic output stayed constant at 0.26 tonnes of CO2 per USD 1 000"

On the other hand I know that global GHG emissions are around 40 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent and that methane is roughly 20%, so CO2 accounts must be roughly 32 billion tCO2.
To be exact "In 2021, global anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions rebounded and by 5.3% in comparison of 2020, totaling 37.9 Gt CO2, just 0.36% below 2019 levels." (https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news/global-co2-emissions-rebound-2021-after-temporary-reduction-during-covid19-lockdown-2022-10-14_en)


Finally world GDP in 2021 was 96.1 trillion USD (google), or 96100 billion USD.

Combining these things we get an average CO2 intensity of 37.9 e9 tCO2 per 96100 e9 USD = 37.9 tCO2/96100 USD = 0.39

How can such a large inconsistency arise?

To put it another way, if the economic output CO2 intensity really was 0.26 tCO2/1000USD then world CO2 emission in 2019 would have to be 25 billion tonnes, which is 34% less than what they actually are.

Is "global economic output" not the same as world GDP? GDP overestimates the true "value" generated (and I don't claim to have a definition of "value", but just intuitively) since it counts exchanges of stuff between people and companies, so there is some double counting if you will. But then this makes the numbers even more inconsistent, because replacing 96.1 trillion with something smaller leads to a CO2 intensity even larger than the 0.39 I got...
12-11-2022 00:23
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.
12-11-2022 00:43
hildes
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
You are very unfunny, you should know that.


No need to count cow burps (yes it's burps not farts, sorry RIP all your witty jokes). If you know how a typical cow behaves you can extrapolate but I am guessing these words don't mean much to you. What is this forum anyway, I previously saw other people talking BS about how climate change is not real. Guess I just ended up on that side of the internet, the one for "differently able" people.

Just leaving this out here if you want to actually learn something about the climate.
https://jancovici.com/en/category/climate-change/
12-11-2022 00:43
hildes
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
.
Edited on 12-11-2022 00:45
12-11-2022 01:28
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
hildes wrote:
You are very unfunny, you should know that.


No need to count cow burps (yes it's burps not farts, sorry RIP all your witty jokes). If you know how a typical cow behaves you can extrapolate but I am guessing these words don't mean much to you. What is this forum anyway, I previously saw other people talking BS about how climate change is not real. Guess I just ended up on that side of the internet, the one for "differently able" people.

Just leaving this out here if you want to actually learn something about the climate.
https://jancovici.com/en/category/climate-change/


What it really comes down to is Margin-of-Error. The data used is incomplete, and full of holes. Those holes can be filled, and the data set expanded using proxies and analogs. All of which add considerably to the error. It's fine to use for illustrating a concept, or marketing. Just not accurate to support the idea. It's kind of like the products 'As Seen on TV', which look like really cool stuff, but actually basically worthless plastic, you are luck not to break getting out of the packaging. Only a very small percentage of consumers will actually complain to customer service for a refund/replacement. Under $20, it's just not worth the time on the phone, aggregation, frustration.

I just went through the second climate-change hurricane that passed though Florida this year. Both turned out to be more tropical storm level, rather than the monster storm being hyped. Thursday, I drove to work, through the leading edge, the worst of it. Drove home through the trailing edge. Really wasn't much to it. We had more than 70 people call in. Lot of customers cancelling, or delaying delivery. So, we get to go in and work on Saturday...
12-11-2022 01:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
hildes wrote:
Hi,

I was reading the IEA Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 (https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2)

and it says "the average emissions intensity of global economic output stayed constant at 0.26 tonnes of CO2 per USD 1 000"

On the other hand I know that global GHG emissions are around 40 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent and that methane is roughly 20%, so CO2 accounts must be roughly 32 billion tCO2.
To be exact "In 2021, global anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions rebounded and by 5.3% in comparison of 2020, totaling 37.9 Gt CO2, just 0.36% below 2019 levels." (https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news/global-co2-emissions-rebound-2021-after-temporary-reduction-during-covid19-lockdown-2022-10-14_en)


Finally world GDP in 2021 was 96.1 trillion USD (google), or 96100 billion USD.

Combining these things we get an average CO2 intensity of 37.9 e9 tCO2 per 96100 e9 USD = 37.9 tCO2/96100 USD = 0.39

How can such a large inconsistency arise?

To put it another way, if the economic output CO2 intensity really was 0.26 tCO2/1000USD then world CO2 emission in 2019 would have to be 25 billion tonnes, which is 34% less than what they actually are.

Is "global economic output" not the same as world GDP? GDP overestimates the true "value" generated (and I don't claim to have a definition of "value", but just intuitively) since it counts exchanges of stuff between people and companies, so there is some double counting if you will. But then this makes the numbers even more inconsistent, because replacing 96.1 trillion with something smaller leads to a CO2 intensity even larger than the 0.39 I got...

Just another currency...based on a value that cannot be measured.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-11-2022 02:01
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2621)
hildes wrote:
I previously saw other people talking BS about how climate change is not real.


I do have a quick question before you run and hide like so many others.

What is the one thing you know to be true that should convince the rest of the world that climate change is real? Also, if you could in your own words, briefly define climate change so we're all on the same page.

Thanks in advance.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
12-11-2022 04:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
hildes wrote:You are very unfunny, you should know that.

By contrast, you are hilarious. You should know that.

hildes wrote:No need to count cow burps (yes it's burps not farts, sorry RIP all your witty jokes).

Nope. It's like you don't know anything about climate.

Warmizombies are forever blurting out how methane is so much more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas that I have to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. Methane comes mostly from farts, not burps. You should go back to climate indoctrination before you start conflating climate with weather.

... or it might be that you are a Brit and that you were never exposed to English so you are mistaken about what the words mean.

hildes wrote:If you know how a typical cow behaves you can extrapolate but I am guessing these words don't mean much to you.

Some of my best friends are bovines, thank you very much. I know exactly how the typical cow behaves. In fact, I'm talking to her right now. She's absolutely certain that she farts far more methane than she burps. I have to go with what the cows say; I trust the cows.

hildes wrote:What is this forum anyway,

As I suspected, you aren't able to read the English description. What language do they speak over there in the UK?

hildes wrote:I previously saw other people talking BS about how climate change is not real.

... and I just saw you write BS about how Climate Change is real. It is apparent that you are not the sharpest tack in the box ... probably because you're a Brit who was denied a proper education.

hildes wrote: Guess I just ended up on that side of the internet, the one for "differently able" people.

Your English comprehension shortcomings are worse than previously feared. There is hope for you, but it might already be too late.

.
12-11-2022 11:24
hildes
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
First let me just say I am honored that such a large number of you found my question interesting and decided to participate in the debate.


————————————————
To IBdaMann:

About the cows farting vs burping question: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-belching-or-cow-flatulence/

About methane being more potent with respect to warming potential, I believe you are correct, over a period of 100 years methane is supposedly 27 to 30 times more potent than CO2. Since methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time than CO2 it is not straightforward to compare their warming potential, that's why people generally set the period to 100 years and look how much the same amount X kg of methane vs X kg of CO2 would contribute global warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Over a shorter period of time the GWP of methane would be higher in terms of CO2 equivalent, since as I said earlier, methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time, therefore most of the heating happens shortly after the it was emitted (while for CO2 it is more uniform over time).

And about me being British, good guess, but it's a miss. I'll give you a tip, in my original post I linked to the website of a well known French climate and energy expert
for a conspiracy theorist (actually I don't know if you are one, but I put climate denialists and conspiracy theorists in the same bag) you aren't very good at investigative journalism.



————————————————
GasGuzzler:

First of all, it's a minority of you guys that think climate change is not real. The "rest of the world" is mostly fine, thankfully.

But to answer your question I would first note that you don't need to know all the technical details of everything, in today's world even the simplest things go through a series of processes that no single person can understand entirely. In order to make toothpaste for example, you need giant chemical plants, months of research with statistical methods to determine the toothpaste is not harmful to humans, you need similar research into the plastic that the toothpaste sits inside, you need agreements between all the parties involved (sellers, producers...), you need lawyers to write those agreements, logistics companies to execute the deliveries of the different components... The list goes on.

So don't treat climate change any differently than toothpaste.

You have no problem buying toothpaste without understanding everything that goes on behind the scenes.
Now I also don't want to sound like a person who says that you should just blindly believe everything people say about climate change. The general consensus is that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate in human history, and that human made greenhouse gas emissions are causing this change. There are certain topics where we are still unsure of what is happening exactly, or what will happen if emissions don't cease.

For me one thing which really when l saw it left no doubt about climate change and how we are causing it is the CO2 concentration levels and oxygen concentration levels measured in different parts of the world since 1970: https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/ghg-and-carbon-cycle/are-we-really-sure-that-its-man-that-modified-the-atmosphere/ (first graph in the article).
This basically proves how we are emitting excess CO2 in large quantities into the atmosphere since a few hundred years ago.
You do have to believe the methods work, and I haven't checked what devices were used to measure these concentrations and who made them. But this is the part where I want to invoke the toothpaste example. I just really believe CO2 concentration measuring devices work. If you want you can choose not to believe it...


Finally, to your last question "Also, if you could in your own words, briefly define climate change so we're all on the same page.".

This is a really good question. I think definitions may vary, but one thing they should all include, is the scale. Specifically there are two times of scales. One is the time scale, and the other is the space scale.

1: We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales.
2: It is a general trend that affects the global earth climate. A single weather event cannot be attributed to climate change, but multiple events that are part of a trend that happens over multiple years can.

A little known fact: the average earth temperature during the last glacial period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period) was about 5 degrees Celsius lower than today's average temperature. The ocean level was around 120 meters lower than what it is today (that's 393.7 feet). 5 average degrees difference. We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seing devastating effects. What do you think will happen at +2, or +3?



————————————————
to HarveyH55:


"What it really comes down to is Margin-of-Error. The data used is incomplete, and full of holes. Those holes can be filled, and the data set expanded using proxies and analogs. All of which add considerably to the error. It's fine to use for illustrating a concept, or marketing. Just not accurate to support the idea. It's kind of like the products 'As Seen on TV', which look like really cool stuff, but actually basically worthless plastic, you are luck not to break getting out of the packaging. Only a very small percentage of consumers will actually complain to customer service for a refund/replacement. Under $20, it's just not worth the time on the phone, aggregation, frustration."


Your first sentence is actually a good guess. But I don't think it can explain such a large inconsistency. I think I am probably using a different definition of the "economic output". In any case, the order of magnitude is consistent, which is good. I sent an email to IEA, I will post the answer here.



That's all from me for now.
12-11-2022 18:06
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2621)
hildes wrote:
1) We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales
2) We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seeing devastating effects.


So this is just a huge paradox. Which is it?

hildes wrote:
the average earth temperature

How is this measured? Surface temp? Atmosphere temp? What altitude? All of it? How is it measure with no thermometers thousands of years ago? How is measured today without enough thermometers?

hildes wrote:
This basically proves how we are emitting excess CO2 in large quantities into the atmosphere since a few hundred years ago.


It doesn't prove anything about global atmospheric CO2 levels. It shows levels of CO2 at that measurement site, likely near a volcano. What's wrong with CO2 anyway? Why do you hate a life essential gas?

hildes wrote:
Now I also don't want to sound like a person who says that you should just blindly believe everything people say about climate change.

Right, because then we would know you are just a missionary sent from the Church of Global Warming, dutifully preaching your faith.


Here's what I'm getting from you:
hildes wrote:
simplest things go through a series of processes that no single person can understand entirely


I can't see climate change.
I can't understand climate change.
I can't measure climate change (you have not associated any value with climate,nor have you defined it.)
I need to let others do my thinking for me.
I need to just believe (which makes it a religion)

So much more to unpack here, but I'm short on time this morning. Got to harvest my tomatoes.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
Edited on 12-11-2022 18:12
12-11-2022 19:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
hildes wrote:First let me just say I am honored that such a large number of you found my question interesting

You had a question?


hildes wrote:About the cows farting vs burping question: [link to bogus misinformation deleted]

I recommend you stop being so gullible. Perhaps learning some biology will help stem some of that.

hildes wrote:About methane being more potent with respect to warming potential, I believe you are correct,

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. No substance has any magical superpower to cause an increase in temperature without additional energy (that's an egregious violation of thermodynamics). I recommend you stop being so gullible. Perhaps learning some science will help stem some of that.

hildes wrote: Since methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time than CO2

Methane and CO2 remain in the atmosphere until something removes them from the atmosphere. You have to be exceedingly gullible to believe that substances have an "atmosphere time." Perhaps learning some chemistry will help stem some of that.

hildes wrote: it is not straightforward to compare their warming potential,

There is no such thing. Learn some science. Even learning a little bit will help.

hildes wrote: ... that's why people generally set the period to 100 years and look how much the same amount X kg of methane vs X kg of CO2 would contribute global warming.

Nobody does this. Nobody is measuring this. Why should any rational adult believe any of this crap?

hildes cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Wikipedia is not any sort of authoritative source. It is awash in errors. You have to be exceedingly gullible and uneducated to cite Wikipedia for anything.

You are greatly confused.

hildes cited:And about me being British, good guess, but it's a miss.

Yes, yes, you are European, my point remains the same. You don't have a strong command of English so you get a pass.

hildes cited:I'll give you a tip, in my original post I linked to the website of a well known French climate and energy expert

That's a contradiction in terms. Anyone scientifically illiterate enough to have become indoctrinated into the Global Warming religion cannot be sufficiently scientifically competent to be an expert on energy.

hildes cited: I put climate denialists and conspiracy theorists in the same bag

Great. What is your formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate? Everything in science is unambiguously defined so this definition should have been the first thing you posted in this thread.

The good news is that it isn't too late to post the definition now, although it might already be too late.

hildes cited:First of all, it's a minority of you guys that think climate change is not real.

This is a standard Marxist tactic. You know that there is no rational basis for you to believe the embarrassing crap that you believe, so you try to bully others into being just as gullible as you were by claiming that you are somehow in the "majority" and that those who aren't stupid like you somehow hold the "minority" position.

Perhaps you realize that there is no magical quantity of mistaken individuals that makes any error transform into being true. If you had any science to support your position, you would have pointed to that instead of immediately pointing to the sheer number of people who are equally mistaken.

hildes cited:But to answer your question I would first note that you don't need to know all the technical details of everything,

Yes, we do need to know all the technical details. I appreciate your struggle for wiggle room but we can't afford to allow any of that to creep into this discussion.

We need all the technical details.

hildes cited:So don't treat climate change any differently than toothpaste.

Exactly. My toothpaste never increases in temperature without additional energy, no matter how much CO2 I spray on it.

hildes cited:Now I also don't want to sound like a person who says that you should just blindly believe everything people say about climate change.

... but you do. You gullibly believe whatever crap you are told to believe, no matter how egregiously it defies science.

hildes cited: The general consensus is

Consensus is never used in science, only in religion and politics.

You shouldn't be as gullible as you are; it causes you to write really stupid things.

hildes cited: ... that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate in human history,

Nobody who says this has ever formally and unambiguously defined the global climate. So, no, there is no unambiguously defined global climate that has changed at all during my lifetime.

You can be the first human to ever unambiguously define the global climate. However, before you rush to copy-paste from Wikipedia out of rash gullibility, learn what an unambiguous definition is and what is required to have one.

hildes cited: ... and that human made greenhouse gas emissions are causing this change.

There is no global climate insofar as anyone has unambiguously defined, and there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas that has the magical superpower to cause an increase in temperature without additional energy.

Learn some science. Even a little bit will help.

hildes cited: There are certain topics where we are still unsure of what is happening exactly, or what will happen if emissions don't cease.

Aaaah, the Marxist "we" injected into bogus gibber-babble. Two great tastes that taste great together.

hildes cited:For me one thing which really when l saw it left no doubt about climate change and how we are causing it is the CO2 concentration levels and oxygen concentration levels measured in different parts of the world since 1970:

... and you gullibly fell for it. That's your problem.

hildes cited: If you want you can choose not to believe it...

That is exactly what I will do. You should have chosen to not believe it as well, but you are apparently one of the most gullible people on the internet and you will apparently believe whatever you read on the internet. I know it's almost a cliche about believing something just because it was read on the internet, yet here you are doing exactly that.

hildes cited:[deleted EVASION of an unambiguous definition of the global climate]

Try again. Post an unambiguous definition of the global climate. Instead of mentioning what points such a definition must have, write the unambiguous definition of the global climate and include all the points that it must contain.

hildes cited:A little known fact: the average earth temperature during the last glacial period was about 5 degrees Celsius lower than today's average temperature.

Why should any rational adult believe that any human has ever known the earth's average temperature to within any usable margin of error?

By the way, I notice that you didn't mention any margin of error in your statement. Is that because you are mathematically incompetent?

hildes cited:The ocean level was around 120 meters lower than what it is today

Why should any rational adult believe this? At the moment, you are officially 2022's most gullible person.

.
Attached image:


Edited on 12-11-2022 19:36
12-11-2022 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
hildes wrote:

————————————————
To IBdaMann:

About the cows farting vs burping question: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-belching-or-cow-flatulence/

About methane being more potent with respect to warming potential, I believe you are correct, over a period of 100 years methane is supposedly 27 to 30 times more potent than CO2. Since methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time than CO2 it is not straightforward to compare their warming potential, that's why people generally set the period to 100 years and look how much the same amount X kg of methane vs X kg of CO2 would contribute global warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Over a shorter period of time the GWP of methane would be higher in terms of CO2 equivalent, since as I said earlier, methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time, therefore most of the heating happens shortly after the it was emitted (while for CO2 it is more uniform over time).

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.
hildes wrote:
And about me being British, good guess, but it's a miss. I'll give you a tip, in my original post I linked to the website of a well known French climate and energy expert
for a conspiracy theorist (actually I don't know if you are one, but I put climate denialists and conspiracy theorists in the same bag) you aren't very good at investigative journalism.

The theories of science you are ignoring are not a conspiracy.
hildes wrote:


————————————————
GasGuzzler:

First of all, it's a minority of you guys that think climate change is not real. The "rest of the world" is mostly fine, thankfully.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. You are simply ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
hildes wrote:
But to answer your question I would first note that you don't need to know all the technical details of everything, in today's world even the simplest things go through a series of processes that no single person can understand entirely. In order to make toothpaste for example, you need giant chemical plants, months of research with statistical methods to determine the toothpaste is not harmful to humans, you need similar research into the plastic that the toothpaste sits inside, you need agreements between all the parties involved (sellers, producers...), you need lawyers to write those agreements, logistics companies to execute the deliveries of the different components... The list goes on.

No, you don't get to use made up numbers as data and justify them that way!
hildes wrote:
So don't treat climate change any differently than toothpaste.
Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate that can change. There is no such thing as a global climate.
hildes wrote:
You have no problem buying toothpaste without understanding everything that goes on behind the scenes.
Now I also don't want to sound like a person who says that you should just blindly believe everything people say about climate change. The general consensus is that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate in human history, and that human made greenhouse gas emissions are causing this change. There are certain topics where we are still unsure of what is happening exactly, or what will happen if emissions don't cease.

Nothing. You can't create energy out of nothing.
hildes wrote:
For me one thing which really when l saw it left no doubt about climate change and how we are causing it is the CO2 concentration levels and oxygen concentration levels measured in different parts of the world since 1970: https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/ghg-and-carbon-cycle/are-we-really-sure-that-its-man-that-modified-the-atmosphere/ (first graph in the article).

Climate cannot change. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
hildes wrote:
This basically proves how we are emitting excess CO2 in large quantities into the atmosphere since a few hundred years ago.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. You are ignoring mathematics now, particularly statistical mathematics. Making up numbers and using them as data is a fallacy, known as an argument from randU fallacy.
hildes wrote:
You do have to believe the methods work, and I haven't checked what devices were used to measure these concentrations and who made them. But this is the part where I want to invoke the toothpaste example. I just really believe CO2 concentration measuring devices work. If you want you can choose not to believe it...
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
hildes wrote:

Finally, to your last question "Also, if you could in your own words, briefly define climate change so we're all on the same page.".

This is a really good question. I think definitions may vary, but one thing they should all include, is the scale. Specifically there are two times of scales. One is the time scale, and the other is the space scale.

1: We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales.
2: It is a general trend that affects the global earth climate. A single weather event cannot be attributed to climate change, but multiple events that are part of a trend that happens over multiple years can.

A little known fact: the average earth temperature during the last glacial period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period) was about 5 degrees Celsius lower than today's average temperature. The ocean level was around 120 meters lower than what it is today (that's 393.7 feet). 5 average degrees difference. We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seing devastating effects. What do you think will happen at +2, or +3?

No, you cannot define 'climate change' with 'climate change'. Circular definition.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of Earth.
How do you know there was a 'glacial period'? Were you there?
hildes wrote:


————————————————
to HarveyH55:


"What it really comes down to is Margin-of-Error. The data used is incomplete, and full of holes. Those holes can be filled, and the data set expanded using proxies and analogs. All of which add considerably to the error. It's fine to use for illustrating a concept, or marketing. Just not accurate to support the idea. It's kind of like the products 'As Seen on TV', which look like really cool stuff, but actually basically worthless plastic, you are luck not to break getting out of the packaging. Only a very small percentage of consumers will actually complain to customer service for a refund/replacement. Under $20, it's just not worth the time on the phone, aggregation, frustration."


Your first sentence is actually a good guess. But I don't think it can explain such a large inconsistency. I think I am probably using a different definition of the "economic output". In any case, the order of magnitude is consistent, which is good. I sent an email to IEA, I will post the answer here.

No, you cannot make up numbers and use them as 'data' to 'fill in the holes'. That is an argument from randU fallacy. You are still ignoring statistical mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 12-11-2022 20:31
12-11-2022 23:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
It's really strange to me, that some think climate change is a bad thing. I like a warmer climate. Part of the reason I moved to Florida. Vegetation also prefers a warmer climate, not to mention large quantities of CO2. Plants are the only living thing that can consume carbon directly from the environment. Everything living on this planet, is based on carbon molecules. No plants, no life could exist. Seems like the more the climate-nazi fight CO2 product, which isn't even the strongest planet-killer, the more we have issues with world hunger and starvation. CO2 is essential to all life on this planet. Methane, we could probably do without. Specially, in a crowded public transportation...

This our first inter-glacial period, where we can study, measure, and record. We only have theories and guess, as to what we might expect. We've been warming for thousands of years. There is no way to know when natural warming ends, and temperatures take a dip. We survive the past changes through migration and adaptation. We didn't attempt to control the change, except maybe a few blood-sacrifices occasionally. Climate-change is like on of those cults. Instead of reading the past, present, and future from a fistful of bloodied goat entrails, tea leaves, or tarot cards. Climate-change uses computer models, and are willing to sacrifice billions of virgins, if that's what it takes. Yes, food shortages will kill billions of people. They are more concerned with clearing millions of acres of fertile land, to plant virtue monuments of solar panels and windmills.
13-11-2022 08:25
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1206)
hildes wrote:

How can such a large inconsistency arise?

To put it another way, if the economic output CO2 intensity really was 0.26 tCO2/1000USD then world CO2 emission in 2019 would have to be 25 billion tonnes, which is 34% less than what they actually are.



Looks like the reason for such a large inconsistency is inflation. GDP must not correctly account for it.


14-11-2022 17:09
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3220)
hildes wrote:
Hi,

I was reading the IEA Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 (https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2)

and it says "the average emissions intensity of global economic output stayed constant at 0.26 tonnes of CO2 per USD 1 000"

They are just making up a bunch of BS numbers about a bunch of BS buzzwords. IOW, it's all complete and utter BS.

hildes wrote:
On the other hand I know that global GHG emissions are around 40 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent and that methane is roughly 20%, so CO2 accounts must be roughly 32 billion tCO2.

How do you know any of this?

hildes wrote:
To be exact "In 2021, global anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions rebounded and by 5.3% in comparison of 2020, totaling 37.9 Gt CO2, just 0.36% below 2019 levels." (https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news/global-co2-emissions-rebound-2021-after-temporary-reduction-during-covid19-lockdown-2022-10-14_en)

Continued BS numbers about BS buzzwords.

hildes wrote:
Finally world GDP in 2021 was 96.1 trillion USD (google), or 96100 billion USD.

Combining these things we get an average CO2 intensity of 37.9 e9 tCO2 per 96100 e9 USD = 37.9 tCO2/96100 USD = 0.39

How can such a large inconsistency arise?

Because it is all just a bunch of made up BS about a bunch of meaningless buzzwords. It's hard to keep stories straight when one is lying, and it's hard to continue fear mongering without making the legends more and more grandiose with each telling of them. --- IOW, you are being bullshitted, and you are falling for the bullshit.

hildes wrote:
To put it another way, if the economic output CO2 intensity really was 0.26 tCO2/1000USD then world CO2 emission in 2019 would have to be 25 billion tonnes, which is 34% less than what they actually are.

There is no "what they actually are". Buzzwords have no measure. It is all made-up BS, and you have fallen for it.

hildes wrote:
Is "global economic output" not the same as world GDP?

They are not the same thing.

hildes wrote:
GDP overestimates the true "value" generated (and I don't claim to have a definition of "value", but just intuitively) since it counts exchanges of stuff between people and companies, so there is some double counting if you will.
But then this makes the numbers even more inconsistent, because replacing 96.1 trillion with something smaller leads to a CO2 intensity even larger than the 0.39 I got...

Those numbers are inconsistent because they are made up numbers based on made up words. All utterly meaningless.
14-11-2022 17:15
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3220)
GasGuzzler wrote:
hildes wrote:
1) We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales
2) We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seeing devastating effects.


So this is just a huge paradox. Which is it?

GREAT catch!
It's funny how such an unnoticeable thing is having very noticeably devastating effects, eh?


GasGuzzler wrote:
hildes wrote:
the average earth temperature

How is this measured? Surface temp? Atmosphere temp? What altitude? All of it? How is it measure with no thermometers thousands of years ago? How is measured today without enough thermometers?

All very good questions, and I'm sure that all of them will continue to go unanswered.
14-11-2022 17:21
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3220)
Spongy Iris wrote:
hildes wrote:

How can such a large inconsistency arise?

To put it another way, if the economic output CO2 intensity really was 0.26 tCO2/1000USD then world CO2 emission in 2019 would have to be 25 billion tonnes, which is 34% less than what they actually are.



Looks like the reason for such a large inconsistency is inflation. GDP must not correctly account for it.

It goes beyond that. The ultimate reason for such a large inconsistency is that this is regarding a bunch of made up numbers about a bunch of made up things. IOW, it's all complete and utter BS... It's hard to stay consistent when telling tall tale after tall tale, and when these tall tales need to grow in grandiosity each time they are told.
14-11-2022 18:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
gfm7175 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
hildes wrote:
1) We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales
2) We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seeing devastating effects.


So this is just a huge paradox. Which is it?

GREAT catch!
It's funny how such an unnoticeable thing is having very noticeably devastating effects, eh?

This is very astute on GasGuzzler's part. This contradiction leads to the obvious question "What devastating effects are we already seeing?" Of course, no answer will be forthcoming except for cited examples of "extreme weather" which are totally normal but are characterized as "unprecedented" in an effort to convince everyone that undefined "extreme weather" is increasing at an accelerating rate that is worse than previously feared.

GasGuzzler simply figured that the world could probably survive without running through that entire mess yet again. Of course, we could see if that is the scientific consensus and if it is the will of the scientific community, run through the entire mess yet again with hildes. What do you think?
14-11-2022 18:18
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2621)
I was hoping hildes would stick around and give us some great examples of AGW enhanced extreme weather. I know he's still lurking and wants to return, but it may already be too late.
14-11-2022 18:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
GasGuzzler wrote:I was hoping hildes would stick around and give us some great examples of AGW enhanced extreme weather. I know he's still lurking and wants to return, but it may already be too late.

Yes, you did extend to hildes the polite request to provide some basic information before fleeing to the hills.
14-11-2022 18:28
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2621)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:I was hoping hildes would stick around and give us some great examples of AGW enhanced extreme weather. I know he's still lurking and wants to return, but it may already be too late.

Yes, you did extend to hildes the polite request to provide some basic information before fleeing to the hills.

Yes sir. I asked politely for 2 things.

1). A definition of climate.

2) An example that should convince the world that climate change is real.

No surprise really. We got neither from him.

hildes? Care to make some comments to the vast minority?


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
14-11-2022 18:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3220)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I was hoping hildes would stick around and give us some great examples of AGW enhanced extreme weather. I know he's still lurking and wants to return, but it may already be too late.

I caught this one too. Damn you're really making some fine posts!
14-11-2022 19:03
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3220)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
hildes wrote:
1) We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales
2) We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seeing devastating effects.


So this is just a huge paradox. Which is it?

GREAT catch!
It's funny how such an unnoticeable thing is having very noticeably devastating effects, eh?

This is very astute on GasGuzzler's part. This contradiction leads to the obvious question "What devastating effects are we already seeing?" Of course, no answer will be forthcoming except for cited examples of "extreme weather" which are totally normal but are characterized as "unprecedented" in an effort to convince everyone that undefined "extreme weather" is increasing at an accelerating rate that is worse than previously feared.

GasGuzzler simply figured that the world could probably survive without running through that entire mess yet again. Of course, we could see if that is the scientific consensus and if it is the will of the scientific community, run through the entire mess yet again with hildes. What do you think?

I agree with GasGuzzler that unfortunately it may already possibly undoubtedly maybe potentially almost certainly be too late.
14-11-2022 20:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
gfm7175 wrote:I agree with GasGuzzler that unfortunately it may already possibly undoubtedly maybe potentially almost certainly be too late.

To a certain extent, perhaps ... but then again, it might already be too late.
14-11-2022 20:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2621)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I agree with GasGuzzler that unfortunately it may already possibly undoubtedly maybe potentially almost certainly be too late.

To a certain extent, perhaps ... but then again, it might already be too late.


Have we established a tipping point? Studies suggest that tipping points breached have been strongly linked to IBdaMann's laser accurate snarcasm. There remains great optimism for a hildes resurfacing, but it may indeed be too late.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
14-11-2022 21:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
GasGuzzler wrote:Have we established a tipping point?

Yes we have ... nine types.

The three categories of tipping points are:

1) Past Tipping Points (It is already too late)
2) Present Tipping Points (It is very late)
3) Future Tipping points (It is definitely NOT too late, although it might already be too late)

Within each category there are three types of tipping points:

1) geological (the planet can no longer recover from human activity)
2) chemical (we have reached a "runaway" violation of thermodynamics effect)
3) paleontological (the rewriting of history can no longer be undone)

So, yes, many tipping points of the kinds mentioned above have been established and are now traveling at a millions times the speed of light ... which is why you can't see them ... which is why you were asking in the first place.

Oh, some tipping points are also moraines. Don't be under one of those babies when it gets "tipped".
14-11-2022 23:16
hildes
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Guys a lot of great points! Let me debunk some of them because I don't have time for everything.

A few people have mentioned the 1st law of thermodynamics and how it proves the climate cannot change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

But this law applies to closed systems, whereas the earth constantly receives energy from the Sun. So it is not a closed system and the law does not apply in this perimeter. If the energy from the sun was negligible then you could argue the average energy on Earth should stay almost constant. But the energy from the sun is considerable. Also, the law does not prohibit a change in the internal distribution of the energy inside a system. When you light a match in a closed room you change the distribution of energy for example, but that does not violate the law of thermodynamics. We are now burning fossil fuels all over the planet and changing the distribution of the energy in that way, which releases greenhouse gases which in turn change the distribution of energy in another way, with help from the sun.

About the share of climate "believers" versus enlightened skeptics: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/
72% of people in the US believe global warming is happening, which come to think of it is quite low given all the evidence.

And here is just some evidence:
https://climatedata.imf.org/pages/climatechange-data
If you look at Climate-related Disasters Frequency, you can see a clear long term trend. Between 1980 and 2020 the number of climate related disasters per year has almost quadrupled.
https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires
Tree cover loss due to fires, 2001-2021. There is a clear linear upward trend, only noticeable over multiple years.

Here is a clear unambiguous definition of climate change that I just made up:
preliminary definitions:
wind: The wind is the perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction.
temperature: physical quantity that expresses quantitatively the perceptions of hotness and coldness.
humidity: the amount of water vapor in the air
precipitation: any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that falls under gravitational pull from clouds
irradiance: radiometry term for the power per unit area of electromagnetic radiation incident on a surface.
Easy definition of what I want to call climate parameter space:
space of all possible (realistic) combinations of the above parameters. For example (3 km/h in north north west direction at certain position on earth, 24 degrees C, 40%, 10 watts per square meter, 3 mm per hour of rain). You may notice this space happens to have 5 dimensions.
Advanced definition of climate parameter space:
replace each scalar value by a function (specifically a scalar field) that describes the corresponding parameter's typical behavior over one year.
A realistic precipitation function could for example look like this: https://towardsdatascience.com/rainfall-time-series-analysis-and-forecasting-87a29316494e
Similar for an irradiance function, just google solar irradiance time series.
For wind it would be a vector field over a sphere, indexed by time.
Definition of climate:
Given the climate parameter space that I defined, call it C, a climate is a probability measure over C.
For example I could define a climate such that it is always raining with probability 1 at a rate of 1mm/h every day of the year, and such that humidity follows a lognormal distribution with a mean that depends on the longitude and latitude, and a variance that is constant. And such that all the other parameters are all follow a uniform distribution over their respective sets of possible values. That's a stupid example but it gives you intuition into what climate is (according to my definition).
Finally,
Definition of climate change:
Given a sequence S=(C_1,...,C_N) of climates over a number of years N, S is said to have the climate change property if it is not stationary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_process
Edited on 14-11-2022 23:27
15-11-2022 01:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
hildes wrote:Guys a lot of great points! Let me debunk some of them because I don't have time for everything.

Interesting. You plan to debunk science. I have to see this.

hildes wrote:A few people have mentioned the 1st law of thermodynamics and how it proves the climate cannot change.

Nobody made this claim.

hildes wrote:But this law applies to closed systems,

Incorrect. The 1st law of thermodynamics applies to all energy, always, everywhere, independently of the system being discussed.

You should develop a strong understanding of thermodynamics before you pretend to show it to be false. Posters on this board have a firm grasp of thermodynamics so you shouldn't expect to get away with misinformation.

hildes wrote:... whereas the earth constantly receives energy from the Sun.

Learn what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system (hint: Wikipedia will not help you; it will only confuse you more).

hildes wrote: Also, the law does not prohibit a change in the internal distribution of the energy inside a system.

... in which case the average temperature remains exactly the same. Remember that later on when you start trying to track every photon through the earth's atmosphere.

hildes wrote:About the share of climate "believers" versus enlightened skeptics:

You're going to have to come up with another word for those who are simply not members of the Global Warming congregation. As for skeptics and warmizombies, all are "believers" in Global Warming; they only differ in their belief of Global Warming being "catastrophic" vs "non-catastrophic."

Scientists and actual atheists who do not believe in your Climate Change religion don't have any reason for worshiping any non-existent global climate or any physics-violating greenhouse effect. You need to explain to us why any rational adult should believe as you believe. Obviously you cannot do that, which is why your religion is dying.

You should also note that your religion targets the scientifically illiterate such as yourself. All who believe in Global Warming are scientifically illiterate. All of them. That's why the extent of your ability to discuss this matter is to copy-paste from Wikipedia or to regurgitate what others have told you to say.

hildes wrote:And here is just some evidence:
If you look at Climate-related Disasters Frequency,

Did I call it, or did I call it?

hildes wrote:you can see a clear long term trend.

Nope. You cannot. Would you believe that not only are you scientifically illiterate, but you are also mathematically incompetent and extremely gullible.

Let me know if you'd like me to explain to you why your misunderstanding in this area is so egregious.

hildes wrote:Easy definition of what I want to call climate parameter space: space of all possible (realistic) combinations of the above parameters.

... and let me guess ... you just couldn't be bothered to tell us what you believe is "realistic", and why you need to qualify this space in that way instead of just going with "all possible combinations."

hildes wrote: You may notice this space happens to have 5 dimensions.

Nope. I do not notice that. Space has three dimensions and you didn't specify any others.

hildes wrote:Advanced definition of climate parameter space: replace each scalar value by a function (specifically a scalar field) that describes the corresponding parameter's typical behavior over one year.

We need to stop right here and give you an opportunity to learn the fundamentals, to include the difference between weather and a climate.

At the moment, you clearly believe that climate is weather. We cannot proceed until you correct this misunderstanding.

hildes wrote:Finally, Definition of climate change:
Given a sequence S=(C_1,...,C_N) of climates over a number of years N, S is said to have the climate change property if it is not stationary

You're not very good with definitions. Apparently climate change is simply a property had by a moving sequence of climates over a number of years.

Not only does this definition contain many ambiguities, it also fails to make any sense.

What climate change property does the earth have right now, according to your definition?

.
15-11-2022 02:03
hildes
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Nope. You cannot. Would you believe that not only are you scientifically illiterate, but you are also mathematically incompetent and extremely gullible.

Let me know if you'd like me to explain to you why your misunderstanding in this area is so egregious.


Yes please explain whatever you think I don't understand in the area of mathematics, stochastic processes, statistics, probability theory and numerical methods since you are so knowledgeable.
15-11-2022 04:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
hildes wrote:Yes please explain whatever you think I don't understand in the area of mathematics, stochastic processes, statistics, probability theory and numerical methods since you are so knowledgeable.

Sure, I'll explain your previous error, but first I want to enjoy your wording here and relish your belief that you are some sort of science genius and mathematics guru. You know nothing but you feel compelled to bluff ... probably because that has worked for you in the past. It will get you mocked here.

In this case, your mathematical incompetence has you hilariously believing that there are dependencies in random events, and thus that there are somehow "patterns" in random events, hence believing that there are patterns in weather.

There are no patterns in weather, just as there are no patterns in fair coin flips or in balanced die rolls. Since you mentioned stochastic systems, you obviously don't understand them either. One can only speculate as to how someone managed to convince you that you were a science genius.

You're an idiot, but I mean that in only the nicest sense of the term ... and I only mention it because you insisted.

In conclusion, your argument rests on bogus conclusions that you drew from your mathematical incompetence. You shouldn't be surprised when you are summarily ignored for the really stupid crap that you babble.

... and you are most welcome. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
15-11-2022 11:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
hildes wrote:
Guys a lot of great points! Let me debunk some of them because I don't have time for everything.

...and now for some more denial of science and mathematics...
hildes wrote:
A few people have mentioned the 1st law of thermodynamics and how it proves the climate cannot change.

Climate cannot change because there is no value to change.

The temperature of the Earth is not climate. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
hildes wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

False authority fallacy. Wikipedia is wrong (again).
hildes wrote:
But this law applies to closed systems, whereas the earth constantly receives energy from the Sun. So it is not a closed system and the law does not apply in this perimeter.

The Sun-Earth-space system is a closed system. The Earth itself is another closed system. The 1st law of thermodynamics applies to ALL systems.
hildes wrote:
If the energy from the sun was negligible then you could argue the average energy on Earth should stay almost constant.

WRONG. The Earth would cool rapidly by radiating light into space. Now you are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
hildes wrote:
But the energy from the sun is considerable. Also, the law does not prohibit a change in the internal distribution of the energy inside a system.

Now you are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy...ever.
hildes wrote:
When you light a match in a closed room you change the distribution of energy for example, but that does not violate the law of thermodynamics. We are now burning fossil fuels all over the planet and changing the distribution of the energy in that way, which releases greenhouse gases which in turn change the distribution of energy in another way, with help from the sun.

Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel. You are now ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
hildes wrote:
About the share of climate "believers" versus enlightened skeptics: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/
72% of people in the US believe global warming is happening, which come to think of it is quite low given all the evidence.

There is no evidence. Random numbers are not evidence.
hildes wrote:
And here is just some evidence:
https://climatedata.imf.org/pages/climatechange-data

Not evidence. Random numbers. Argument from randU fallacy.
hildes wrote:
If you look at Climate-related Disasters Frequency, you can see a clear long term trend. Between 1980 and 2020 the number of climate related disasters per year has almost quadrupled.

Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.
hildes wrote:
https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires
Tree cover loss due to fires, 2001-2021. There is a clear linear upward trend, only noticeable over multiple years.

Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy. It is not possible to measure Earth's tree loss due to forest fires.
hildes wrote:
Here is a clear unambiguous definition of climate change that I just made up:

Climate cannot change. There is no value that can change.
hildes wrote:
preliminary definitions:
wind: The wind is the perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction.
temperature: physical quantity that expresses quantitatively the perceptions of hotness and coldness.
humidity: the amount of water vapor in the air
precipitation: any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that falls under gravitational pull from clouds.
irradiance: radiometry term for the power per unit area of electromagnetic radiation incident on a surface.
Easy definition of what I want to call climate parameter space:
space of all possible (realistic) combinations of the above parameters. For example (3 km/h in north north west direction at certain position on earth, 24 degrees C, 40%, 10 watts per square meter, 3 mm per hour of rain). You may notice this space happens to have 5 dimensions.

Clouds are not water vapor. They are liquid water or ice. Climate has no values associated with it. Climate has NONE of these values.
hildes wrote:
Advanced definition of climate parameter space:
replace each scalar value by a function (specifically a scalar field) that describes the corresponding parameter's typical behavior over one year.
A realistic precipitation function could for example look like this: https://towardsdatascience.com/rainfall-time-series-analysis-and-forecasting-87a29316494e
Similar for an irradiance function, just google solar irradiance time series.
For wind it would be a vector field over a sphere, indexed by time.
Definition of climate:
Given the climate parameter space that I defined, call it C, a climate is a probability measure over C.
For example I could define a climate such that it is always raining with probability 1 at a rate of 1mm/h every day of the year, and such that humidity follows a lognormal distribution with a mean that depends on the longitude and latitude, and a variance that is constant. And such that all the other parameters are all follow a uniform distribution over their respective sets of possible values. That's a stupid example but it gives you intuition into what climate is (according to my definition).

Climate has no values. Buzzword fallacies.
hildes wrote:
Finally,
Definition of climate change:
Given a sequence S=(C_1,...,C_N) of climates over a number of years N, S is said to have the climate change property if it is not stationary
...deleted Holy Link...

Climate has no sequence. Climate has no values associated with it. Climate cannot change.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-11-2022 11:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
hildes wrote:
Nope. You cannot. Would you believe that not only are you scientifically illiterate, but you are also mathematically incompetent and extremely gullible.

Let me know if you'd like me to explain to you why your misunderstanding in this area is so egregious.


Yes please explain whatever you think I don't understand in the area of mathematics, stochastic processes, statistics, probability theory and numerical methods since you are so knowledgeable.

You have demonstrated that you don't understand probability mathematics or statistical mathematics.

You attempted to describe a probability without declaring a boundary or randX.
You attempted to describe a 'statistical summary' without declare and justifying a variance, calculating a margin of error, use published raw unbiased data, and failed to select by randN, normalize by paired randR, or produce both required numbers of any statistical summary.

You also attempt to use probability to predict. Not possible due to importing random number mathematics. You also attempt to use statistics to predict. Not possible due to importing random number mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 15-11-2022 11:27
15-11-2022 23:05
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.


What was apocalyptic about covid? I mean the worlds population continued to grow all the way thru. So grow up


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
16-11-2022 02:26
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.


What was apocalyptic about covid? I mean the worlds population continued to grow all the way thru. So grow up


Covid was just a new clod virus, for which humans had nothing close to natural immunity to. The only people who got seriously ill, or died, were people already in bad shape, medically. Covid was only a complicating, or contributing factor, not the sole reason. The liberals maintain, that these people wouldn't have had any problems, if they hadn't gotten infected. Which is why we were all forced to participate. Biden even resorted to extortion, to get more Americans vaccinates. The vaccine, at that point, was pretty much useless, as the two dominant variants (Delta,Omicron were vaccine resistant). Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in. Hopefully, a Republican House will do an Impeachment Inquiry, a boot that drooling, hair-sniffing moron. Biden was told clearly, had no authority to mandate every American to get vaccinated, before he went with the OSHA extortion scheme. Closest he could come to all Americans, he thought.
16-11-2022 10:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.


What was apocalyptic about covid? I mean the worlds population continued to grow all the way thru. So grow up


Covid was just a new clod virus, for which humans had nothing close to natural immunity to.

Covid19 is not of the rhinovirus series (cold viruses). It is from the SARS/Covid series. No virus from the SARS/Covid series of viruses is a cold virus.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The only people who got seriously ill, or died, were people already in bad shape, medically.

SARS/Covid series viruses are known for inducing pneumonia. NONE of them kill, but the pneumonia certainly can if left untreated. Pneumonia is no joke. Treatment must begin early or your options fall off rapidly.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Covid was only a complicating, or contributing factor, not the sole reason.

NONE of the SARS/Covid series viruses kill.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The liberals maintain, that these people wouldn't have had any problems, if they hadn't gotten infected. Which is why we were all forced to participate. Biden even resorted to extortion, to get more Americans vaccinates. The vaccine, at that point, was pretty much useless, as the two dominant variants (Delta,Omicron were vaccine resistant).

This is just Paradox V.
1) I am getting vaccinated to protect myself from covid19.
2) I insist YOU get vaccinated because my vaccination doesn't work.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in. Hopefully, a Republican House will do an Impeachment Inquiry, a boot that drooling, hair-sniffing moron. Biden was told clearly, had no authority to mandate every American to get vaccinated, before he went with the OSHA extortion scheme. Closest he could come to all Americans, he thought.

Using OHSA like this is also unconstitutional.

The Democrats discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions. The federal government has been converted into an oligarchy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-11-2022 14:24
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.


What was apocalyptic about covid? I mean the worlds population continued to grow all the way thru. So grow up


Covid was just a new clod virus, for which humans had nothing close to natural immunity to.

Covid19 is not of the rhinovirus series (cold viruses). It is from the SARS/Covid series. No virus from the SARS/Covid series of viruses is a cold virus.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The only people who got seriously ill, or died, were people already in bad shape, medically.

SARS/Covid series viruses are known for inducing pneumonia. NONE of them kill, but the pneumonia certainly can if left untreated. Pneumonia is no joke. Treatment must begin early or your options fall off rapidly.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Covid was only a complicating, or contributing factor, not the sole reason.

NONE of the SARS/Covid series viruses kill.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The liberals maintain, that these people wouldn't have had any problems, if they hadn't gotten infected. Which is why we were all forced to participate. Biden even resorted to extortion, to get more Americans vaccinates. The vaccine, at that point, was pretty much useless, as the two dominant variants (Delta,Omicron were vaccine resistant).

This is just Paradox V.
1) I am getting vaccinated to protect myself from covid19.
2) I insist YOU get vaccinated because my vaccination doesn't work.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in. Hopefully, a Republican House will do an Impeachment Inquiry, a boot that drooling, hair-sniffing moron. Biden was told clearly, had no authority to mandate every American to get vaccinated, before he went with the OSHA extortion scheme. Closest he could come to all Americans, he thought.

Using OHSA like this is also unconstitutional.

The Democrats discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions. The federal government has been converted into an oligarchy.


And no virus from the cold or Sars series has ever had a successful vaccination created. So if you see a fool in a mask ask them how many vaccines they had and they will tell you 4. Well then retard why are you wearing a mask if you are vaccinated. If they are honest, they will tell you that they are morons that believe everything that the government babbles because the government really cares about people


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
16-11-2022 15:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:And no virus from the cold or Sars series has ever had a successful vaccination created.

This is because viruses don't ever have any vaccinations created.

People, on the other hand, create vaccinations that meet with varied levels of success, to include some that meet with very high levels of success.

Swan wrote: So if you see a fool in a mask ask them

Singulars are not plurals. Ask him.

Swan wrote: ... how many vaccines they had and they will tell you 4. Well then retard why are you wearing a mask if you are vaccinated.

The honest answer is/was: "I want to keep my job and/or my business so I can feed my family; I do as I am ordered by the government that will gladly destroy my life."

.
16-11-2022 18:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.


What was apocalyptic about covid? I mean the worlds population continued to grow all the way thru. So grow up


Covid was just a new clod virus, for which humans had nothing close to natural immunity to.

Covid19 is not of the rhinovirus series (cold viruses). It is from the SARS/Covid series. No virus from the SARS/Covid series of viruses is a cold virus.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The only people who got seriously ill, or died, were people already in bad shape, medically.

SARS/Covid series viruses are known for inducing pneumonia. NONE of them kill, but the pneumonia certainly can if left untreated. Pneumonia is no joke. Treatment must begin early or your options fall off rapidly.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Covid was only a complicating, or contributing factor, not the sole reason.

NONE of the SARS/Covid series viruses kill.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The liberals maintain, that these people wouldn't have had any problems, if they hadn't gotten infected. Which is why we were all forced to participate. Biden even resorted to extortion, to get more Americans vaccinates. The vaccine, at that point, was pretty much useless, as the two dominant variants (Delta,Omicron were vaccine resistant).

This is just Paradox V.
1) I am getting vaccinated to protect myself from covid19.
2) I insist YOU get vaccinated because my vaccination doesn't work.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in. Hopefully, a Republican House will do an Impeachment Inquiry, a boot that drooling, hair-sniffing moron. Biden was told clearly, had no authority to mandate every American to get vaccinated, before he went with the OSHA extortion scheme. Closest he could come to all Americans, he thought.

Using OHSA like this is also unconstitutional.

The Democrats discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions. The federal government has been converted into an oligarchy.


And no virus from the cold or Sars series has ever had a successful vaccination created. So if you see a fool in a mask ask them how many vaccines they had and they will tell you 4. Well then retard why are you wearing a mask if you are vaccinated. If they are honest, they will tell you that they are morons that believe everything that the government babbles because the government really cares about people


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

They certainly are morons, and they will probably wear a mask until they die of old age or some other cause.

Requiring people to wear a mask is, of course, just Paradox M.
1) I wear a mask to protect myself from covid19.
2) I demand you wear a mask because mine doesn't work.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-11-2022 18:15
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:And no virus from the cold or Sars series has ever had a successful vaccination created.

This is because viruses don't ever have any vaccinations created.

People, on the other hand, create vaccinations that meet with varied levels of success, to include some that meet with very high levels of success.

Swan wrote: So if you see a fool in a mask ask them

Singulars are not plurals. Ask him.

Swan wrote: ... how many vaccines they had and they will tell you 4. Well then retard why are you wearing a mask if you are vaccinated.

The honest answer is/was: "I want to keep my job and/or my business so I can feed my family; I do as I am ordered by the government that will gladly destroy my life."

.


Wrong as the vaccine for polio has wiped out at least one strain of the disease, but you will never know. You done jerking off on the bus yet?


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
16-11-2022 18:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:Wrong

What did I write that was incorrect?
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate economic output emissions intensity vs global emissions / global GDP:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How The New Global World Economic Financial System Will Be130-07-2022 19:47
Because global warming from emissions is real...14719-03-2022 17:57
I The Savior Messiah Can Present The Perfect Balance New World Economic Financial System114-03-2022 14:17
Understanding The Modern Slave Economic System As Of 2022013-03-2022 10:35
The True Reason Behind The Russia Ukraine War Is The Great Economic Reset System013-03-2022 06:45
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact